Who's dominance in a single season was most similar to Federer's dominance in 2006?

Djokovic

Nadal

As we know, Federer has a 95-5 record at year 2006, winning 12 titles and accumulating 15250 pts (a record). And Federer had reached each GS final that year, winning them in 3 out of 4 attempts as well as 4 Masters 1000 titles and the World Tour Finals.

2011 Djokovic won 3 out of 3 GS finals and 1 GS semifinal, finishing with a 70-6 record, and won 41 consecutive matches (Jan-May). He also won 10 tournaments including a record breaking 5 ATP Masters 1000 titles in 1 year.

2010 Nadal on the other hand had won 3 out of 3 GS finals and 1 GS qtrfinal, finishing with a 71-10 record. He also won 3 Master 1000 titles by winning all 3 clay court masters titles.

Whose 'dominance' during a single season was most similar to Federer's 2006?

Djokovic's since like Federer he was unable to win the years biggest event on a certain surface. Nadal was able to win the years biggest event on all surfaces, making him superior to both. Djokovic was atleast able to win tournaments on clay and beat Nadal on it though, which puts him above Federer in 2006 however. As "no clay slam to go with his grass and hard court slam for the year" Djokovic is closer to being down with "0 clay titles and 1-4 finals record for year vs Nadal" Federer I voted him.

I guess it has to be Novak's. 10 titles > 7 titles, 3 majors and a semi > 3 majors and a quarter, his run of dominance lasted from January to September, whereas Nadal's lasted from April to October (although Nadal did win 4 matches at the WTF).

Djokovic's since like Federer he was unable to win the years biggest event on a certain surface. Nadal was able to win the years biggest event on all surfaces, making him superior to both. Djokovic was atleast able to win tournaments on clay and beat Nadal on it though, which puts him above Federer in 2006 however. As "no clay slam to go with his grass and hard court slam for the year" Djokovic is closer to being down with "0 clay titles and 1-4 finals record for year vs Nadal" Federer I voted him.

Click to expand...

lmao

Neither year is even that close to Federer's 06. Especially Nadal's 2010. Nadal lost as more matches in 2010 alone than Fed lost in 05 and 06 COMBINED.

Neither year is even that close to Federer's 06. Especially Nadal's 2010. Nadal lost as more matches in 2010 alone than Fed lost in 05 and 06 COMBINED.

Click to expand...

He did not lose a match at the biggest clay, biggest grass, or biggest hard court event of the year however. No surface, nor any opponent, was an issue for him. For Federer both clay (0 clay titles in 2006) and Nadal (1-4 vs Nadal in finals, including a final on lightning greased courts) were a major issue. As for Federer in 2005 he may have lost only 4 matches, too bad despite that he managed to win only 2 of the years 5 biggest events and make only 2 of 4 slam finals on the year somehow, LOL!

Honestly, nobody. What fed did in 2006 was insane. I was pretty shocked when nobody really mentioned it that much after that amazing year up until around these past 2 years people started to refer back to it.

Fed finished the year 92-5.

When your win/loss record looks more like Julio Cesar Chavez's career win loss record, you know you got something special. I really can't get over that number.

Just to put in perspective how talented federer truly is, he is 31 years old and still on the upper 2 percentile of all active tennis professionals. He has done better in accumulating tournament points beating out 98 percent of the active professional men's field. Look at hewitt, roddick, safin, ferrero, blake and all the rest of his graduating class, see where they are. Federer is really something special. People need to realize that.

Just to put in perspective how talented federer truly is, he is 31 years old and still on the upper 2 percentile of all active tennis professionals

Laver won yet another Grand Slam at age 31. For Federer winning Wimbledon and briefly returning to #1 at 30 seems amazing, but for Laver winning all the slams at 31 was just ho hum, yet another day at the office.

Agassi was ranked #1 in the World and a Slam Champion at 33.

Serena has owned the last 3 major tournaments and made a mockery of the Worlds so called top 2 ranked players at 31.

Just to put in perspective how talented federer truly is, he is 31 years old and still on the upper 2 percentile of all active tennis professionals

Laver won yet another Grand Slam at age 31. For Federer winning Wimbledon and briefly returning to #1 at 30 seems amazing, but for Laver winning all the slams at 31 was just ho hum, yet another day at the office.

Agassi was ranked #1 in the World and a Slam Champion at 33.

Serena has owned the last 3 major tournaments and made a mockery of the Worlds so called top 2 ranked players at 31.

How is what you said such an amazing feat.

Click to expand...

Because you could only come up with 3 other instances, one from decades ago and one from the WTA? :lol:

Djokovic's since like Federer he was unable to win the years biggest event on a certain surface. Nadal was able to win the years biggest event on all surfaces, making him superior to both. Djokovic was atleast able to win tournaments on clay and beat Nadal on it though, which puts him above Federer in 2006 however. As "no clay slam to go with his grass and hard court slam for the year" Djokovic is closer to being down with "0 clay titles and 1-4 finals record for year vs Nadal" Federer I voted him.

Click to expand...

Lol..are you claiming Nadal's 2010 was the greatest year since Laver? Federer in 2006 made all four slam finals, won WTF, accumulated the most points in a season since ATP started, and only lost to two people. Nadal lost to more people more often and was less consistent. Nobody in 2010 felt the buzz of dominance that was felt in 2006 (or 2011) As for fields, that's pretty subjective. Might as well say Laver sucked in 1969, he just benefited from a pre-modern playstyle. But his season was still the best.

Lol..are you claiming Nadal's 2010 was the greatest year since Laver? Federer in 2006 made all four slam finals, won WTF, accumulated the most points in a season since ATP started, and only lost to two people. Nadal lost to more people more often and was less consistent. Nobody in 2010 felt the buzz of dominance that was felt in 2006 (or 2011)

Click to expand...

Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that. :lol:

Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that. :lol:

Click to expand...

92-5. 3 Slams and a Final in the other. WTF title. One of the best winning % of all time. And he bageled Nadal :lol: By far the most dominant season in recent memory.

I don't think that Nadal's 2010 was as great as Federer's 2006 (winning 12 titles and reaching 16 finals in 17 tournament appearances was phenomenal).

However his RG-Wimbledon-US Open treble on 3 different surfaces in a 16 week timespan was an amazing and very underrated achievement. Many great players couldn't win all 3 of those tournaments, the 3 most prestigious events in the sport, during their careers, let alone in one single year.

Federer had been two points away from achieving that feat himself the previous year, when he lost to Del Potro in the 2009 US Open final after completing the RG-Wimbledon double.

If Nadal had beaten Federer in the YEC final (not that Federer who was in inspired form throughout that entire tournament was going to be stopped), then he would have won the most prestigious tournaments on 4 different surface specifications (clay, grass, hard and indoors) in one year. Had that happened I think his 2010 would have been superior to Federer's 2006.

The only straw clutching is desperate ****s who think winning a slam and briefly being #1 at age 30/31 is an unamazing unearthly feat when Andre Agassi, a total non GOAT contender, recently was winning a slam and being ranked #1 at age 33. :lol: As for winning Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, and beat Graf and Seles and won tier 1 titles at age 36. Rosewall won Roland Garros and beat Laver to win the WTF finals at age 36 and 37. Anymore excuses in store?

The only straw clutching is desperate ****s who think winning a slam and briefly being #1 at age 30/31 is an unamazing unearthly feat when Andre Agassi, a total non GOAT contender, recently was winning a slam and being ranked #1 at age 33. :lol: As for winning Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, and beat Graf and Seles and won tier 1 titles at age 36. Rosewall won Roland Garros and beat Laver to win the WTF finals at age 36 and 37. Anymore excuses in store?

Click to expand...

Agassi didn't have any 5-year-younger tier-1 GOAT snapping at his heels. And why would you keep bringing up WTA? ATP is totally different. And about Rosewall :lol: Tennis then was different where there were no great athletes and even grandfathers could win (which is why Gonzales had such a good record against Laver for someone 10 years older). Again, your examples are full of fail. Federer's ascension to #1 is incredibly impressive. You're probably just butthurt that it disproves your silly, "Federer dominated in a weak-era" argument.

And no one claimed it was "unearthly". One guy said it was impressive and you came butting in because you couldn't hold your butthurt anymore :lol: I know you're still pissed Nadal went out to #100 but hold it in, he'll be back and he'll have his time again. For now, it's Federer who's reigning.

Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that. :lol:

Click to expand...

Nobody gives a f*ck what McEnroe or whoever thought. Most intelligent people expected Federer to win and he did. He shoved a bagel up Nadal's ass, a fact that you seemingly ignore.

So what if he lost to Nadal on clay? You are the guy who props Nadal up as the clay god. His matchup problems are well documented. Nadal on the other hand benefitted from a weakened field. Federer did too to a certain extent, but with Federer, he looked unbeatable against any hypothetical opponent. We all know that Nadal would've been pummeled by Djokovic on hardcourts and lose to peak Federer on faster surfaces. Federer on the other hand would only be expected to lose in Paris. The AO was not yet played on plexicushion.

Nadal got outplayed hard by Murray in Melbourne and failed to win the WTF, even though it was played on a slow surface.

Compare Federer's winning percentage in that year with Nadal's and then come back to me.

The only straw clutching is desperate ****s who think winning a slam and briefly being #1 at age 30/31 is an unamazing unearthly feat when Andre Agassi, a total non GOAT contender, recently was winning a slam and being ranked #1 at age 33. :lol: As for winning Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, and beat Graf and Seles and won tier 1 titles at age 36. Rosewall won Roland Garros and beat Laver to win the WTF finals at age 36 and 37. Anymore excuses in store?

Click to expand...

Agassi accomplished this only because he went up and down the rankings, sometimes falling off the radar completely, had he been at the top of the game the entire time like Fed, then it might have been comparable, not to mention we're comparing the Aussie Open to Wimbledon, please, and let's leave the girls tour out of this, what a complete joke, and back when my grandpa played, the game was a little different.

LOL it is so easy to get the ****s butthurt and crying a river with just a little prodding. They love their mancrush and fantasy more than their own children if they have any. Seemingly oblivious that he is married, has his own kids, and doesnt give two twats about their existence.

LOL it is so easy to get the ****s butthurt and crying a river with just a little prodding. They love their mancrush and fantasy more than their own children if they have any. Seemingly oblivious that he is married, has his own kids, and doesnt give two twats about their existence.

Click to expand...

Oooh, personal attacks. You think Nadal gives 2 arsewipes about you? No. Then why are we arguing? Because this is a Tennis forum. Grow a pair and don't get personal about Tennis debates.

what Fed's 2006? hm. remind me one more time of his field? who did he have to beat? did I hear 'a bunch of nobodies', yeah, I thought so.

Click to expand...

Whatever it was, I am sure that it was better than what Nadal faced for his 2010 slams when Fed,Djoko and Murray were all going through a bad patch. Unless you consider Youzhny and Melzer in slam semis as tough competition ;-)

You're mistaking a preference with a choice One may prefer to be born (after one is born and becomes capable of such thought) but no one can choose to be born.

Click to expand...

I meant, we all choose the circumstances we are born into to fulfill a certain purpose, believe it or not Of course, once you are born you are a prisoner as you would have no recollection of why you made that particular choice.

Just to put in perspective how talented federer truly is, he is 31 years old and still on the upper 2 percentile of all active tennis professionals

Laver won yet another Grand Slam at age 31. For Federer winning Wimbledon and briefly returning to #1 at 30 seems amazing, but for Laver winning all the slams at 31 was just ho hum, yet another day at the office.

Agassi was ranked #1 in the World and a Slam Champion at 33.

Serena has owned the last 3 major tournaments and made a mockery of the Worlds so called top 2 ranked players at 31.

How is what you said such an amazing feat.

Click to expand...

Because GOAT Nadal would already be hospitalized in a wheelchair with artificial kneecaps by age 30.

I meant, we all choose the circumstances we are born into to fulfill a certain purpose, believe it or not Of course, once you are born you are a prisoner as you would have no recollection of why you made that particular choice.

Click to expand...

Here's something I found on the net, it could probably do a better job of explaining the quote than I ever could :

"They're both oaks, even if they were planted in different forests. But then, m'lord, we all suffer in our different ways from being prisoners of birth.” – Fraser Munro (A Prisoner of Birth - Jeffrey Archer)

So aptly put… come to think of it, most of what we are is because of something we don’t have a hand in. We can’t chose our parents, our religion, the social strata we want to belong to or for that matter our name – and it is all of these that gives us our identity. An identity that evolves, but never really goes far from its essence.

We are prisoners of our roots, and like in the extract, we can only hope to move towards the sun, while remaining firmly bound to our earth. I am not sure whether this is fortunate or otherwise, but one can only hope to grow into the tallest oak of the forest.

He did not lose a match at the biggest clay, biggest grass, or biggest hard court event of the year however. No surface, nor any opponent, was an issue for him. For Federer both clay (0 clay titles in 2006) and Nadal (1-4 vs Nadal in finals, including a final on lightning greased courts) were a major issue. As for Federer in 2005 he may have lost only 4 matches, too bad despite that he managed to win only 2 of the years 5 biggest events and make only 2 of 4 slam finals on the year somehow, LOL!

Click to expand...

Nadal 2010 is immediately disqualified from the discussion, because he didn't even reach the semis of all 4 slams, let alone the finals of all four like Federer did.

Nobody gives a f*ck what McEnroe or whoever thought. Most intelligent people expected Federer to win and he did. He shoved a bagel up Nadal's ass, a fact that you seemingly ignore.

So what if he lost to Nadal on clay? You are the guy who props Nadal up as the clay god. His matchup problems are well documented. Nadal on the other hand benefitted from a weakened field. Federer did too to a certain extent, but with Federer, he looked unbeatable against any hypothetical opponent. We all know that Nadal would've been pummeled by Djokovic on hardcourts and lose to peak Federer on faster surfaces. Federer on the other hand would only be expected to lose in Paris. The AO was not yet played on plexicushion.

Nadal got outplayed hard by Murray in Melbourne and failed to win the WTF, even though it was played on a slow surface.

Compare Federer's winning percentage in that year with Nadal's and then come back to me.

Click to expand...

Not only that but a brief lapse in concentration cost Federer winning the 4th set 6-1. That 06 final was a comprehensive beatdown.

Djokovic's since like Federer he was unable to win the years biggest event on a certain surface. Nadal was able to win the years biggest event on all surfaces, making him superior to both. Djokovic was atleast able to win tournaments on clay and beat Nadal on it though, which puts him above Federer in 2006 however. As "no clay slam to go with his grass and hard court slam for the year" Djokovic is closer to being down with "0 clay titles and 1-4 finals record for year vs Nadal" Federer I voted him.

The first half of Djokovic's 2011 season was the greatest ever, dominating the greatest claycourter ever (on clay) and arguably the GOAT as well. However he ran out of steam and the season doesn't end at the US Open.

Nadal's 2010 was great, but it wasn't dominance all year round. It was dominance in the final 3 biggest events of the year. He had too many losses and too few tournaments to be comparable to Federer's 2006.